Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/03/2010 RJune 3, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 3, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Melissa Ahern Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, GMD Deputy Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 6, 2010 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS —May 25, 2010 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. CP- 2008 -5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master Plan to include: increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density; elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and, addition of approximately 103 acres presently designated Agricultural /Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area as Identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. [Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD- PL2009 -1259 Timothy R. McKenzie represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., is requesting a 36 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 56 -foot dock facility to accommodate two vessels. Subject property is located at 47 Southport Cove, Lot 52 of Southport on the Bay, Unit 2 in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ashley Caserta, Sr. Planner] B. BD- PL2009 -1157 Michael and Debra Rotkvich, represented by Michael A. Kelly of Paradise Docks, is requesting a 28.5 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit as provided in section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 48.5 -foot dock facility to accommodate two vessels. Subject property is located at Lot 43 of Southport on the Bay, Unit 2 subdivision in the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (street address: 54 Southport Cove). [Coordinator: Ashley Caserta, Sr. Planner] C. VA- PL2009 -045 Sara Barrera is requesting an after - the -fact variance of 8 feet from the required minimum front yard setback of 25 feet in a Residential Multi - Family (RMF -6) Zoning District as provided for in Section 4.02.0I.A. Table 2.1, of the LDC. The 0.34± acre site contains a single family dwelling that encroaches 8 feet into the required 25 -foot front yard setback reducing the front yard setback to 17 feet. The subject property is located at 202 Washington Avenue, in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 5/24/10 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the June 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everyone will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before the roll call this morning, I'd like to welcome a new Planning Commission Member, Ms. Melissa Ahern. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the spelling, I think it's A- H- E -R -N. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And she has been appointed to fill the remainder of Tor Kolflat's position. And we had some other news last week, that we are losing Mr. Wolfley. He is going off to ventures far away and has resigned from the Planning Commission effective last week, so we will have a new person sitting over to my left sooner or later. Not this left, but between Bob and Karen. So with that in mind, will the secretary please take the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the secretary would if he were here, but I'll do it in his stead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm so used to you being in that position for years. I'm sorry. Good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. Page 2 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of me's here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley is obviously resigned. And Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN Addenda to the agenda. Planning Commission? (No response.) Item #4 Okay, thank you. Thanks for filling in. Are there any changes from staff or the PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, our next Planning Commission Meeting will be the 15th of June. It's for -- to review -- it's the adoption hearing for the GMPA's. Does anybody on this panel here Page 3 June 31 2010 today know if they're not going to make it on the 15th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the following two days later, the 17th, is our regular meeting. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the regular meeting`? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Nick, the GMPA's, how soon will it be before we get those? It would be nice to have them. That's quite a hefty volume to read and we're less than two weeks away, and that is going to put a little bit problem on us to have to get that done plus our regular meeting. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I signed the cover sheet documents yesterday, so they're putting the packages together last tonight (sic), and it should be distributed today or tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do you know how intense the 17th meeting's going to be? MR. BELLOWS: We have about six items on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oy, yi -yi. MR. BELLOWS: They look to be two boat docks, a PUD rezone for North United Methodist Church, and a conditional use for Grace Place, and another PUD for Meridian Village. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a lot to digest, because we're going to have to read the adoption notebook as well as that stuff at the same time. I would very much appreciate it if staff could get at least the adoption notebook to us by tomorrow afternoon; give us the weekend to start on it. Is that something that you think could happen, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm texting the office right now to see if I can get that squared away and give you an answer before the meeting closes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 4 June 3, 2010 MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 6, 2010 REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to the approval of the minutes. They were electronically sent out for May 6th. Anybody have any comments? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and that's probably going to be 6 -0 -- 6 -1, with Ms. Ahern probably abstaining because she wasn't here, I would assume. Right? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. Item #6 BCC REPORT — RECAPS — MAY 25, 2010 Page 5 June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC reports. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on May 25th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the variance that was in the Estates for Leo Lasher. They approved that on the summary agenda, as well as the rezone for Port of the Islands Community Improvement District and its companion variance. That was also approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. We had spent some time on the Port of the Islands. I'm glad that worked out for everybody. Excellent. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Okay, Chairman's report. Don't have any, other than I'm probably like a lot of people, keeping my eyes on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I can't imagine anything being any worse than what we've got dealing with out there. I can only hope we don't have a hurricane. Item #8A PETITION: CP- 2008 -5, AMENDMENT TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP Next item on the agenda, though, is the consent agenda items. And this is the Immokalee Area Master Plan. There are some changes recommended by the County Attorney's Office, and one catch by Margie Student. Bob, I'll let you get into them. June 3, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Okay, thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, here on behalf of the CRA. Penny Phillippi is also here this morning. I have some changes that are relatively minor from Heidi. There's about maybe a dozen of them, and I'll go over each one by page. And then Mariorie's will fall into that going by page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. MULHERE: And then I know that there's -- Commissioner Caron mentioned she had some questions, and maybe I'll answer them. If not, you know, just stop me whenever we come to something that you had an issue with. Page 7 is the first one, under Objective 1.1. By the way, most of these were things I should have caught and didn't, so in fairness, I appreciate it, Heidi, wherever you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's in the back behind us. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. It was a team effort, and I appreciate it. Just after -- the first sentence which reads: The Immokalee -- between Immokalee and por -- between Immokalee and Community Redevelopment Agency, we're inserting the phrase portion of the Collier County. So it will read: The Immokalee portion of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. Let's move on to the next one, on Page 8. And some of these changes occur in different locations, the same change. Missed the -- on the first bullet where it presently reads: Support the CRA and the Economic Development Council, paren. EDC, of Collier County, that was to have been changed to other economic development entities, so that's the change we've made. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not even sure, Bob, you need it there at all, because it's in the second bullet. I mean, I don't know if you want it in both bullets. It's fine, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't hurt. Page 7 June 3, 2010 MR. MULHERE: I think they're different issues, so it's probably just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- as well we keep, yeah. Page 10, a relatively minor change under Policy 2.2.2., pre - certified commercial industrial sites. In the highlighted one, two, three, four, fifth sentence down, adding after Economic Development Council the phrase of Collier County. And the next one is on Page 11. And this one occurs in a number of locations, and it's been made in all those locations. If you want me to cite each one, I will. But under 2.3.1., in a number of locations, let me see, one, two, three, fourth sentence down, I had used the phrase Immokalee CRA, and I used that in a number of locations. And so we struck through Immokalee. You know, it's redundant; we don't need to say that, just the CRA. Because we've already parenthetically defined that, or whatever the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't think you need to keep going over that one, we understand it. MR. MULHERE: That's kind of what I thought. That was in a number of locations. On Page 12, at the -- those were both -- I think those are both the same change. Okay, so going to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Under Policy 2.4.1, it says again here, will work with the EDC. And EDC needs to come out there because it's covered under public and private organizations to promote these opportunities. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then down at the bottom of imob June 3, 2010 the page under Policy 2.5.1, again, second to the last line, it says: Work with the Immokalee CRA. And then cross out "the" and EDC, because it's covered with other public and private organizations. MR. MULHERE: Got it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Okay, next change that I had -- or should I say Heidi had -- was on Page 17. And it was relatively minor. For some reason there I left in the entire written phrase, Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency, which should simply say CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.3.1. up on top, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes, 3.3.1. at the top, yeah. And again, that same change is made on Page 18 under Policy 4.1.1, striking through Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency and just inserting CRA. On page -- we're going all the way to 29. Two things here. One, just call your attention to Policy 6.1. 7 .D, which is the language that was -- that we constructed, that we added, just to call your attention to that. But there was a typo there, the word "sub-district" was misspelled, so I corrected that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And then on Page 30, the phrase -- part of the direction was to strike through on -- I'm sorry, on Policy 6.1.9., rezoning, one, two, three, the fourth line after the word rezone, we were to strike through the phrase consistent with the prior existing zoning. I neglected to do that, so we've struck through that now. That's the extent of Heidi's changes. I did have one that Marjorie caught and called to our attention, and that's in the density rating system, so let me get to that, Page 47. You'll recall that Marjorie raised the issue of VR zoning, which had never been included in this table or this paragraph. We agreed to add it. And we did add it to the table, but we neglected to add it to the Page 9 June 3, 2010 text. So we've now made a note to add it. It will be in the one, two, three, third line after single-family, add a comma, put in VR, comma, and then it will read and/or RMF-6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the extent? MR. MULHERE: That's the extent of the changes that we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have just a couple more. On Page 41. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: You see the bullet points on the-- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- page? The second bullet point should have a period after unit development, because we've -- and cross out "and", because we've n MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Yeah, got it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- crossed out the rest of it. And Page 51. It is number -- little two there, ii there. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It should read: The project is consistent with and furthers the applicable. So it just needs to reverse the word not applicable -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah, got it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's it. MR. MULHERE: It's just annoying. Patricia would be very disappointed in my lack of grammatical oversight here. But thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Blame it on your word processor or being at the Blue Martini or something like that. Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. On Page 55. Unfortunately I wasn't able to check this with the minutes of the meeting, because we Page 10 June 3, 2010 don't have those yet. But as I remember, the motion that we approved, we wanted to go along with the EAC recommendations, and that would involve keeping it at four dwelling units per acre rather than changing it to the base density. MR. MULHERE: I don't recall that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't either. MR. MULHERE: I know that it was the County Attorney, or it was Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney, that raised the issue of potential property rights issues for those few districts that already allow a higher density that fall within that. But remember, I put on the record that that was less than five percent of that area. So 95 percent of it would be subject to the four unit per acre. I don't recall that the vote included changing that back, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. There were a couple MR and LR designated sub-districts, which if you limit it to four, it would have been a reduction in development rights. So that's why we switched it to sub-districts. So it is -- most of it is in LR and was a four, but the other ones had a higher density. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public have any comments on the consent issues for the Immokalee Master Plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. Page 11 June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. And that's for consent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Any that was -- from the motion maker and the second I'm assuming with the changes we discussed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With -- obviously, yes, with the changes, surely. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both acknowledged that. Okay, good, thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, thank you. Appreciate it. Item #9A PETITION: BD-PL2009-1259, TIMOTHY R. MCKENZIE Next up is the advertised public hearings. The first one is BD-PL2009-1259, Timothy R. McKenzie at 47 Southport Cove. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to Page 12 June 3, 2010 be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only disclosure I have is I called Rocky Scofield after receiving a complaint from the adjoining property to ask him to look at alternatives on how he might develop that property to satisfy the complaint, and I think we'll probably hear on that today. With that, Rocky, it's all yours. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield, with Turrell, Hall & Associates, representing Timothy McKenzie, whose residence is at 47 Southport Cove. Southport on the Bay is the division -- subdivision in Lely Barefoot Beach, which I have on the overhead. I'm sure most of you are familiar with where that is. This is Southport Cove in here. This is the -- this just shows you an aerial of the whole peninsula here. And we've done quite a few of these extensions around the area, anywhere from 30 feet out to almost 70 feet. This shows -- the dock outlined in blue is the proposed dock for Mr. McKenzie. And the dock there on the aerial that is existing, is just to the south of Mr. McKenzie's lot. We're proposing a dock that's got a 36-foot extension for a total protrusion of 56 feet into a waterway that is 270 feet wide. Again, that waterway, that's measured from mean high to mean high water. Obviously there's lots of mangroves in this area, so a lot of times we come back and we look at navigable waterway. The navigable waterway distance in this area is 152 feet wide. The land across the -- I'm going to show you the aerial again. Page 13 June 3, 2010 That shows you the distances from the -- how the 270 is measured and then the clear distance from mangrove drip line to mangrove drip line is 152 feet. So a lot of times what we do in these cases, the -- we go to -- we show you both distances. Navigability is obviously the question here. It's 152 feet wide of navigable water. We are protruding 33 feet into that navigable waterway, which is a protrusion of 22 percent. On the other measurement, the 270 feet, which is mean high water line to mean high water line, the 56 feet total distance is a 20.7-foot protrusion. The dock is configured -- the setbacks on the dock are 18 feet on the south property from the south riparian line. It's 25 feet from the north riparian line. It shows the access to their boatlifts is from the north, and that's why we've left a little bit more distance on the north side, so we won't have conflict should a dock in the future be built on the vacant lot to the north of Mr. McKenzie, if they were to build in at the 15 feet, which is the county setbacks. So we have -- we've received staff approval. Staff has gone through these, we've met all the criteria on both sections of the boat dock extension application, and I'll answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Rocky, that 13-foot dimension you showed to the neighbor's dock, is that a survey dimension or is that something you got off the appraiser -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's a survey. You know, when -- the boat dock extension, part of the application is you have to have a legal survey of the property and the structures on either side of you. So every time we come before you, we have to show the position of what we're proposing in relationship to the existing structures on either side of what's being presented to you. Page 14 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where is that shown in our packet? Because I never saw the neighbor's survey. MR. SCOFIELD: It's on the survey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the foldout ll-by-17 sheet, the first one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Rocky, in the letter that I've received from Mr. Olah-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull the mic. closer to you, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In a letter that we've received from Mr. Olah, the concern -- one of the concerns they have is the ability to maneuver around the proposed dock in accessing the boat- lifts. Do we have a calculation, a space calculation there to be able to determine that as a probability? In other words, if you put -- I guess maybe can you show the two properties so that we can determine, or at least get a sense of? I'm trying to understand how that concern will be valid. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Well, it's -- you know, their dock and lift is 13 feet out where the lift is from their riparian line. Our proposed dock is 18 feet off the riparian line. So there's a distance of 31 feet. Now, that's going to change a little bit when you put -- when you put a boat on the neighbors to the south, when a boat goes on there, then it's going to be sticking out to the north probably another three feet. But still, depending on what size boat it has, there's 31 feet from that lift to our dock. Page 15 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I appreciate that. The mooring of the vessels is intended to be more northerly of their property, is it not, on that decking and dock configuration that you've drawn there? MR. SCOFIELD: You mean for the proposed dock? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, they're accessed from the north. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if you will, assuming north being the top coming down -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- they would gain entry to their mooring by just approaching the dock and sliding in. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. And that's -- the configuration of the dock was designed that way because we know, we're well aware of the neighbor's proximity to the riparian line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. SCOFIELD: So not to interfere with them and us being able to get in -- Mr. McKenzie being able to get in and out, allowing also for the person, whoever moves in to the north of him, this is the configuration that works and doesn't interfere with anybody else's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So from the largest vessel that's shown there to the point where their interference might be construed would be the riparian line. But that would be 13 feet plus some eight or nine feet before they would actually -- any vessel would actually get over into their riparian right area. Did you understand me? MR. SCOFIELD: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me try again. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the larger vessel on that diagram. And from the tip of that vessel to the bow you have a distance -- and I don't know, what is that 19, 15 feet, something like that? Okay? Page 16 June 3, 2010 MR. SCOFIELD: It's a 25-foot setback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is including the riparian line. So it's 25 feet -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- before they would ever -- that Mr. McKenzie's vessel could possibly even enter into the riparian right area -- MR. SCOFIELD: Of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- of the adjacent-- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you, that's what I needed to understand. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. And when people -- you know, riparian rights are there for structures. And your -- the code also says it's for moored vessel and the structure. Boats utilize other peoples, inside their riparians. They come across their lines. I mean, that's just a common thing with boating, you have to do that a lot of times to get in and out of your docks. And that's, you know, we try to minimize those things so there's no conflict. That's why we put the boats over on that side, so there's not boats backing out the other way to the south that would interfere with the neighbor to the south. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But that's also considered to be the navigable waterway as well, is it not? MR. SCOFIELD: Where the dock is? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would not be any kind of a transgression, it would be normal maneuvering. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Page 17 June 3, 2010 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a quick one. Rocky, the information that was provided to us, this platform that you have here, it said something about it was for handicapped access? MR. SCOFIELD: Mr. McKenzie has a paraplegic son who has use of his hands, but he's in a wheelchair. And this is -- what he's doing, he's going to put in a deck boat here for his son and make it accessible. His son can go out by himself on this boat. He needs a turnaround area when he gets in and out. The docks -- the walkways are only allowed to be four feet wide in this area due to conservation easements and all of that stuff. So when he gets out there he needs to be able to maneuver to turn around if he needs to and get back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's what -- I was just trying to figure that out. Because I have a mother who's in a wheelchair and I know what it takes to maneuver. And that five-foot area down to the boats -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- certainly was not going to get somebody in a wheelchair on and off. MR. SCOFIELD: He can get on the boat when he gets -- you know; obviously there'll be a ramp onto the boat there and -- to the smaller boat for him. And when he gets off, obviously he's going in the right direction. But if he were to get out there and had to turn around, that's what that's for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a comment. But Rocky, code five-foot turnaround is -- I mean, the dock is 15 feet you're making for the turnaround? Do you think that's excessive, or -- and since, you know, when the dock comes through the mangroves, it really could cut over towards where you're positioning the lifts at an angle too and kind of cut away some of that -- you know, Page 18 ".,___."",__",",__V',,___,"_,.,_,,'_'__'_'''..._.__n_....,,~.. ....,.~..,_...,_...."_...~'._.."M._...'._... ~___.w_,~-.._._.....,""__,___._~,, .~.... June 3, 2010 there is concern over excessive dock in this review. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, a five-foot turnaround is what most people would be looking for, not a IS-foot turnaround. And could you not angle that over a little bit and kind of make that a little bit easier to come around that area for the neighbor? MR. SCOFIELD: That may be possible. What we're stating here -- you know, we did this -- obviously design this way, and we're staying under the state rules. This -- the state rules in outstanding Florida waters is under -- 500 square feet or under. That's what this dock was designed to. And, you know, the IS-foot area was just a design feature. I think that's -- you know, is it -- could it be cut down a little? Maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what's a better position on that, you may want to take those two docks, the five-foot and the four one, extend them straight out till they meet and create a comer, and that be the outside comer of that deck that you've put there. And move the rest of the deck in closer to the mangroves. That's a dead space anyway; you're not going to put a boat there, it's not going to hurt anybody to -- MR. SCOFIELD: Of the turnaround area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You understand what I'm saying? MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a solution, and it would eliminate some of the concerns maybe the neighbor has over view. It leaves the same amount of deck but moves it inside closer to your property in an area you can't use and nobody could use anyway. Instead of making it go out farther. So do you see anything that would be problemat -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, I don't -- yeah, just looking at it, yeah, Page 19 June 3, 2010 that could be moved in. You see the five-foot figure? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: Here, let me put the bigger one on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, take that five-foot-- MR. SCOFIELD: That could just be, yeah, brought back five feet right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: And that would give a little bit better angle for the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it also would, you know, keep it all to an inside area that you -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- couldn't use anyway. MR. SCOFIELD: I don't think the owner would have any problem with that. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just slide it over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what is going to happen on that deck? I mean, is that for a table and chairs, or-- MR. SCOFIELD: No, you can't -- you're not allowed to do that. The state regulates that. Even though this is exempt, they call those -- you know, it happens, but that's called non-water dependent structures. You're not supposed to have umbrellas and tables and all that stuff there. Anything you put out there needs to be water dependent. A dock box to have your supplies for your boats, you know, that's okay. Table, chairs, lounge chairs, stuff like that is not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why are you making it 15 feet by 15 feet? I know you truncated the comers a little, but why does it have to be that big? What's going to happen out there? It's certainly not for a handicap turnaround. Page 20 June 3, 2010 MR. SCOFIELD: Right. Well, it's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if it was, it's a bad design anyway, because the guy would have to back the length of the dock to turn around. So what is going to happen on 15 feet by 15 feet? MR. SCOFIELD: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic. MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry, excuse me. Ray was actually -- yeah, that's what I think Mark was talking about. Now, if you want to cut down that turnaround area a few feet, you know, that's not a problem. This was just a design that the owner wanted to go with. We were staying under the 500 square foot rule to be exempt from state regs in this area. And, you know, I don't see any problem with what Ray just put up on the screen. We still don't believe even reducing that -- that can be reduced a few feet, but it's still not excessive, we don't believe it is, for the wheelchair. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's solely going to be open for a wheel -- in other words, the question I'm asking, what are you going to use it for? If you're going to use it for a turnaround, it's exceSSIve. MR. SCOFIELD: It's a turnaround and for dock box storage for supplies for the boats. If you want to make a recommendation to reduce that five feet, I can certainly, you know, put that to the owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will certainly make that recommendation, that it not be larger than a 10- foot by 10- foot. And even that's giving you a lot of extra room. It's giving you five by five extra. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if they move it in like this drawing shows and it's in dead space anyway, and they're not exceeding the limit set by the state, what difference does it make? Page 21 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the state has a maximum of threshold. And they're designing this thing to meet the threshold and essentially getting as much dock as they can get. So I just -- he's not answering why they really need it. It can't be for handicap turnaround because it's an excessive amount to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm looking at it from a different angle. Who cares why they need it? They have an ability to put that much in, they own a waterfront lot, that's not a bad design. If they want to use it to put a dock box or give themselves more latitude to walk back and forth, especially in a wheelchair on the edge of a water, what's wrong with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, because I think what it will be, it will be a table with an umbrella and chairs and a place to go down by the water and sit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the state doesn't want it out on these docks. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, it could be that in any condition you have here. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, I mean, that's -- you know, that's conjecture. I mean, anybody can go do that, even on a five or six-foot dock if they want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then why do you want it so big? I mean, just to -- so that you can brag to the -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's what the owner conveyed to us that he would like to have for his son and what they would want, and we were staying under the state rules. And we don't view that -- as Mr. Strain said, that's dead space area, especially when you move it back in anyway closer to the mangroves, so we don't feel it's excessive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray? Page 22 - --'-.--.-'.------_..._~,_._~._._ '-'-"-"_-"'_""~'_'_.*_'__'."__~~.'____",.._w._'_,,'_,'" June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would favor Commissioner Schiffer's view on that, to reduce the size, and lO-by-lO is fine. If that's a question -- I don't know that that's a view issue. And I can understand that, you know, we can countenance the idea of okay, they'll probably put tables and chairs there anyway. But it just seems extraordinarily large. And if it's the -- if the premise is for turnaround for the wheelchair, that falls short, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments by the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rocky, thank you. Ashley? MR. SCOFIELD: If I may, I believe there's some public speakers here today, if! could re-address the board after they're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. And I believe that this would be Ashley's, probably last presentation before this board. She is moving to the CRA. It's called the flight of CDES, because Nick is there. MS. CASERTA: It's not true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ashley, you've been a real good help to this board so we thank you. And the best of luck in your new position. The CRA is very fortunate to have you coming on board. MS. CASERTA: Thank you. It's Bayshore, not the Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only who's spoken up for Nick, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a little extra in the check, Ashley. MS. CASERTA: For the record, Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner with the Zoning Department. I just have a few things I wanted to point out. There was a typo on Page 6 of my staff report. And that staff report -- towards the bottom it states that staff analysis indicates that the request meets four Page 23 June 3, 2010 of the five primary criteria, and it should read all of the five. I had a few conversations on the phone and over the e-mail -- over e-mails that I sent to you from Mr. and Mrs. Olah. And Sylvia Olah is here to speak. And I forwarded their comments to this panel. And I did receive one phone call from a neighbor at 43 Southport Cove stating that they have no objection to this petition. And that's all that I have, unless you have any questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ashley, thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody in the public wish to speak on this item? Yes, ma'am. Just come on up and identify yourself in the microphone, and let us know what you have on your mind. MS.OLAH: Silvia Olah. O-L-A-H. S-I-L-V-I-A. Good morning. First of all, I want to apologize that my husband's not here with me. He had to leave yesterday because he had a prior business commitment in New York. And so I -- we both felt it was so important us to be here and comment and express our concerns, and so I'm here. I don't want beleaguer you, because you've received our written comments already, but I just -- just as a brief background, we purchased the home last November, 2009, with the intent of making it our primary residence and retirement home. And the boatlift and dock has been there for the past 11 years. And we are looking forward to a wonderful--living in a wonderful environment and boating possibilities for us. Currently you can see in our packet our aerial view of our dock. We have an unobstructed water view and an unobstructed waterway access. And we feel and we're concerned that the proposed dock will Page 24 June 3, 2010 have a negative impact on both. The way the dock protrudes out into the waterway, if you're looking at the edge of our dock, which our dock protrudes about 20, 25 feet. So we're actually in the middle of their walkway and seeing a very huge dock structure there. The private homes around our cove with their docks all have boats either parallel or very, very close to the water line and not protruding right into the waterway. And in looking at how we have gotten the design from Ashley, who was so kind to forward it to us, we feel that our ability to dock into our boatlift that faces the adjoining property of the proposed dock will be difficult. We've asked a few people in our community that own homes and own boats there to just come and give a quick visual look. And they said that even an experienced boater, which obviously we're not yet, would have some difficulty maneuvering the dock into that specific boatlift. And also what we didn't mention in our small letter was our concern of safety and property damage. In these maneuvers, should something occur, we would not have to have -- we would not like our safety and the safety of our passengers affected, as well as damaging -- possibly doing some damage to the proposed dock or odd dock as we maneuver the boat into that boat slip. And I know that the aerial shots give you a view, but if you are standing at our dock looking at the waterway, it really looks as if the protrusion of that dock will be -- will be right in that waterway. So basically in conclusion, and thank you so much for listening to our concerns and taking them into account, we currently have, you know, an unobstructed water view, unobstructed waterway passage from both our docks that is -- will be compromised. And on the other hand, the owner of the proposed dock will have an unobstructed view and an unobstructed access to the waterway we Page 25 June 3, 2010 feel at somewhat at our expense. So we hope that there is some type of dock configuration available that would mitigate what we feel we are concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Olah? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ma'am, I appreciate your concerns, I do. But I'm going to ask you what I think might be a little bit of a tough question for you. When you buy a property and you have a lovely place and you look out and you see unencumbered, it's lovely, and you don't want to see that changed. But I mean, in reality, you must know that things will change, right? MS. OLAH: Uh-huh. And we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And your question -- what you're looking for is something to be reasonable, and that's where the real question lies, what is reasonable. And I have -- I've done a bit of boating myself, sailboat, which is a singles crew and quite challenging to maneuver, and so I can appreciate your concern. But at the same time, because I have boated I understand that just like driving a car, one learns how to deal with it. Why do you believe that you and those persons -- why do you believe with that much distance that you will have difficulty with your dock? What is it that you see that I fail to see? MS.OLAH: Well, we were looking at purchasing two boats, somewhere between 20 and 28 feet. And the distances -- the distance between the riparian line from us and the riparian line from them would restrict the size of the boat. I tried to call several boat dealers to understand if there is some type of formula, if you have a 20- foot boat how long -- how much of a space do you need to maneuver into a slip such as ours. And I was Page 26 June 3, 2010 told there is no formula, that it depends on the radius of the boat. So, you know, having that much space, whatever the space is, restricts. And I'm not quite sure how much room we have based on the angle we would need to come in on at that boat dock. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! -- pardon me. MS. OLAH: And it's just a concern and we're just expressing it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. And you mentioned New York where your husband is. And I think that most persons, especially young people, when they start out with parallel parking, they wish the cars were two lengths away instead of being like that. And it's a matter of learning and it's scary, and I understand that. And I'm not going to judge how you will do, but I know that most boaters get adjusted. And I wish you well with that. I think your concerns are valid, but they may not be as severe as you expect they could be. MS.OLAH: I do appreciate that. And the only consideration we're asking is, is there anything that could be done to the proposed dock that would, you know, mitigate or help us to have the least amount of negative impact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. And I have one last question relative to that. I was looking at the pictures that were given us in our packet. And from your house it seems that the -- I'm guessing now because I haven't been there. It would seem that you cannot -- if you're standing by your lawn, I'm assuming you have a lawn, you couldn't see past the mangroves because they seem to be high. So your view is that of mangrove. And in the distance you see the waterway from a floor. So you would have to go out to your dock in order to see that there's an obstruction caused by any other dock; is that correct? MS.OLAH: Well, we do have a wraparound terrace on the second floor that -- Page 27 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second floor. MS.OLAH: -- oversees everything. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. Well, I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you had said the view that you were concerned about when your initial discussion started was from your dock. MS. OLAH: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. And from your dock, any dock that's put north of you will have a change in your view. But you said something, you were going to get two boats somewhere between 20 and 28 feet. Your permit that you supplied to us shows 18 feet for one boat and 24 from the other. And it shows the 18- foot boat on the side facing this particular neighbor, and it shows your setback to be 15 feet and you're only 13 feet. You know, a lot of your concerns may be self-imposed. If your dock was built properly or if you wanted larger boats and you rebuilt your dock to accommodate larger boats, you may be able to avoid the concerns that you have here today. MS. OLAH: You know, this was just recently brought to our attention. We purchased the home in November of2009. And we aren't at the state of mind -- you know, we're intent on looking into our boat acquisitions after my husband retires at the end of this year so, you know, I'm not totally cognizant of all the details. I'm sure we'll discover it as we discover everything else when we come down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to be careful, because if you go out to purchase a boat and you buy one in excess of what you were supposed to put there, you could end up in some more trouble, so -- MS.OLAH: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'd check all that stuff before you go buy and save you some effort. Or at least before you go buy, if you want to change your docks to accommodate a larger boat, come in and Page 28 June 3, 2010 get the right permits for it. Okay, anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. OLAH: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rocky, did you want to have any final comments? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, I just wanted to say a few things. I appreciate Mr. Murray's comments on the mangroves. I've been on this site, and a lot of these areas up here, the mangroves do hide the docks from the first floor of the patios. Obviously when you get to the second story on these places, you can see a lot of everything. But, you know, my client from his second story, he's got a pretty tall house, he can see all the other docks too. And that's just a function of living on the water. Nobody has an unobstructed view, pretty much. You know, you're going to see a dock here and there in this area. So with that, my client -- I met with Mrs. Olah yesterday, and I understand her concerns. And the way their dock -- they didn't build -- they inherited that dock; they bought the home. And as you pointed out today, there are some problems with that. But that's what they're stuck with. I understand that. We're here today for -- to get an extension for my client who no fault of his that that dock is the way it is and that their problems are the way -- we have designed this dock not to be a problem with anybody. And that's what we're here on the -- there's plenty of room to the south of the neighbor's dock, the Olah's dock. There's 33 feet from their dock to the south property line. And that's totally unobstructed access in that area. Page 29 June 3, 2010 So Mr. McKenzie is -- you know, he wants to be a good neighbor, and I can certainly -- the comments that were made today, by bringing the turnaround area in five feet, reducing it to 10 feet, I don't -- if you want to -- if that's your wish, I can run that by Mr. McKenzie. Again, he -- you know, he doesn't want to cause any problems here. But we're not -- our dock designed the way it is should stand alone. But, you know, we're open to what you have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's interesting this reduction in footage. If you take and lop off the five feet that extends past the five- foot dock that you have out there, you end up with a 10- foot area. So maybe that's all you -- could you put that diagram back on? I think that's all you need to do. Instead of moving anything back in, you just simply lop off the outside five feet and you end up with an area that's -- see what I'm saying? MR. SCOFIELD: That would probably work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not what you're saying on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's Ray's architecture. MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, no, he just moved the whole thing back. I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Saw off everything -- MR. SCOFIELD: Just saw that off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drop the five feet that's outside the five- foot dock and you're covered. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. I don't think Mr. McKenzie would have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He shouldn't. MR. SCOFIELD: And that would obviously give the neighbor a little bit more comer to cut coming into their lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that. That's fine. Let's go with that. Page 30 June 3, 2010 But Rocky, one thing too, is if you want to help a handicapped person, instead of making the dock five feet wide, if you made that six, maybe even seven, that's where the help would be, not where the two docks intersect, to give him the chance to turn around. In other words, getting on and off the boat's going to be his problem. That's where he's going to need the dimension. You know what I mean? Where you have the five-foot leg of that, if you were in here saying I've got to make that seven for handicapped, I would be -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. Well, they're going to put in a -- there's a ramp platform between the dock and the boat that's going to have enough width where they can angle back and go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's where it needs to be turning -- MR. SCOFIELD: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second thing, just a quick -- MR. SCOFIELD: He said that this -- you know, that that would be okay with the ramp system. They're going to have a pontoon boat and have a ramp out to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: After then one question is after a dock is installed, is there an as-built survey to anything to catch the problem that happened on their lot? I mean, first of all, you didn't build that dock to the south, right? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I did not. And I didn't do the BDE either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when you complete a dock, do we have a system where we do a survey to -- MR. SCOFIELD: Usually you -- the county has an as-built survey that's required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Showing it in the wrong place? Because that's a really poorly positioned dock. MR. SCOFIELD: You bet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This boat's going to cantilever off the back of the lift and make it even worse. Page 31 June 3, 2010 MR. SCOFIELD: If you look on the aerial-- and this is a problem. You know, when docks were built, and I probably have done this in the past too, but when they -- surveys obviously weren't required. When this BDE was done, surveys weren't required. Somebody just handed in a drawing, we -- you know, everybody assumes it's all -- the drawings are in good faith, that's the way it is. That's why the BD -- obviously the BDE would not have been passed if the dock angled over. And you can see when -- excuse me. The -- when you look at the riparian line -- now, the walkway, the Olah's dock -- or used to be the Leck (phonetic), they're the people that used to own it. It's 15 feet where it meets the land, okay. That's what it was shown on the old drawings. But when they built it, it angled out, and that's where you get the 13 feet. Of course there were no as-built surveys as you're -- certifications as you're saying now. Those are in place today. And surveyors go out and layout -- we're not into -- unless we're into construction management, which we don't do most private residential, but we sure ask that the contractors get a surveyor to lay out the points of the dock so it is where it's supposed to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But in the construction of a dock even today there's no survey required and there's no as-built survey required? MR. SCOFIELD: I believe there is. I believe there is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this isn't that old. This is 10 years old? MR. SCOFIELD: That was done in '99, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's 11 years. That should have had all those surveys. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, those rules weren't in place then of the surveys. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, based on the drawing you have Page 32 " 0____.._._....., '''''''''_''_''''_'__~_''''''__'_'''_'_''_'_'''_ ,.. ._-" ,,_,__. ""'>"'~"'_'~""'_'_"'~,'''_'____'',_'~''__''~'''._._~ .._._....._ .._. _~'~'_',,,,,,,,,,,,,y_,""h""~,~,,__,^,_,,_,,,__,_,_",,,__ June 3, 2010 here, that 42 feet, does that mean the Olah's boat dock has a 22-foot dock extension as well? MR. SCOFIELD: That 42 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because Ms. Olah doesn't believe they have a dock extension, but I think -- it looks like they do. MR. SCOFIELD: They do. There was an after-the-fact boat dock extension applied for by the contractor at that time. What had happened, if you read back through all the paperwork, that was the Leck residence, prior to the Olahs. You know, they showed it out 20 feet. Well, as we know, that's a -- they got a permit for it and then lifts went in also. Now they're out 32 feet. And that's where it happened; they made them come back in for an after-the-fact. The 42 feet, if you look at the aerial, whenever we -- and if you zoomed it out, you'll see the whole peninsula. Whenever we come into you, we do -- everybody in the area, we go in from on the computer on the aerials, and we calculate, we estimate. And it's pretty close, where -- how far out the extensions are. A lot of these extensions I have in files, so we know that. Now, the discrepancy between the 32 feet and our 42 feet, you know, that's what we estimated off of an aerial. So, you know, I don't know how pertinent that is here right now, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And looking at the prior, where you showed the Olah's dock, I believe with -- of course this is a guess-timation, but looking at the numbers there, I would be very concerned if they were to put in a 28- foot boat in there and try to mix it. There's just -- that would be the wrong size boat for that area. Neither side there looks like it would be okay. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the problem you have is a 28-foot boat is in actuality at least a 34- foot boat -- excuse me, a 32- foot boat. You have outboards hanging out, you have bow pulpits. And then, you know, 28-foot boat is overall length of 32. Then you're going to need Page 33 June 3, 2010 more than that to maneuver, obviously. And you have to keep the boats apart. So they have some problems there that they're, you know, putting in a bigger boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a quick -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- question. Ray, could you go to the other picture you have. And the question might be, Rocky, is maybe when they did the riparian lines they didn't just extend the property line. We've had great testimony on where riparian goes. And should it not go perpendicular to the center of that channel? So maybe those lines rotate upwards in their appli -- MR. SCOFIELD: You know, no, they don't. Their appli -- I mean, I can show you their application. It comes straight off. And that's what -- you know, yeah, you know, if -- the thread of that channel, it's pretty close. It's almost exactly perpendicular to the thread of the channel the way those lines are right now. If you drew straight down through there, that cut, it's pretty dam close. They may cant a little bit, but it's not much. But when we have older docks that have already been through the process, they've been approved, we kind of have to go with their -- what their riparian lines they used back then. Because if we change them drastically, then they wouldn't be in compliance and that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the riparian, if somebody did do a center line, I could see where that angle would lift up and essentially bring their dock into compliance and actually start raising questions on your -- MR. SCOFIELD: It might shift a couple of feet, but the center line there is pretty close to being perpendicular. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, I just said that to make Mark's tooth hurt more. So I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 34 June 3, 2010 Rocky, I have one question. It's not really an issue, I just want -- I'm just curious. When you do the drip line dots on your maps for the mangrove line, do you go out and survey those drip lines or do you pull it off the aerial? MR. SCOFIELD: No. Surveyed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Survey. MR. SCOFIELD: That's all-- if you look at your foldout surveys, the drip line's on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but they match the aerial. So I didn't know which one you took them off of. But you actually survey them and it just happened in this case they do match the area. MR. SCOFIELD: What we do, if you'll no -- it doesn't exactly. We super-impose -- we layer on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, you're getting into more detail than I needed. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, we just layer that over the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not belabor the point. I needed it for background. Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: It's surveyed. You can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky? MR. SCOFIELD: -- see there, it's not quite -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Good man. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing, entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we recommend Page 35 June 3, 2010 approval of this with the adjustment made by cutting out the dock and the extension past the five-foot section of the dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it wouldn't be to recommend. Make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I made it to approve, not recommend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said recommend. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm approving. I know this is the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'm not certain it's as clear. I would want to match it to a drawing or something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Ray did a sketch. And Rocky, also -- MR. SCOFIELD: In the consent we will revise the drawing and bring it back in for the consent agenda. And it will be -- I'll be here and we'll put that on the overhead for the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rocky, you don't have -- see the little truncated piece? You don't have to do that. I mean, this drawing is somewhat deceptive in scale. But see the little piece that -- you know, the original design had almost a hexagon thing going. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't have to keep that little hexagon -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Square it off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the piece of that, okay? You could square it off. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, we have to change it for all the building permits and everything anyway, so -- Page 36 June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Okay, thank you all. Item #9B PETITION: BD-PL2009-1157, MICHAEL AND DEBRA ROTKVICH Next item up is Petition BD-PL2009-1l57, Michael and Debra Rotkvich. It's at Lot 43 of Southport on the Bay, unit two. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, it's all yours. Page 37 June 3, 2010 MR. KELLY: For the record, my name is Mike Kelly. I am the president of Paradise Docks, who will be the builder of this project. And first thing I must do is apologize, I didn't have any colored beautiful photographs like Rocky did, but I have some things to show this construction of this dock. I hope this is clear enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clearer than what? MR. KELLY: Well, anyway, we're going to be located right across the street, as a point of reference. As you notice, the Little Hickory Bay, we're on the other side of Little Hickory Bay and the -- and I've got an additional overhead. And this is the actual location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's much better. MR. KELLY: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. But the location is almost directly across the street from them. Not -- almost. But this site location is in the Little Hickory Bay area. Oh, there you go, that's even better. As you can see in reference to the one we just discussed, it is very close to -- just a little bit south of that. As you can see, both the neighbors on either side of Mr. Rotkvich have docks existing. We're going to have a 25-foot setback on either side. And I designed - this dock is meant to not impede the navigation of any other docks or interfere with their navigation whatsoever. As you can see, this is an older drawing, but I believe about a 25-foot boat is about the maximum we can get in there. I had initially a 30- foot boat, but Mr. Rotkvich indicated that he didn't plan to purchase anything that large. This is an older drawing. And at this time he was going to put a single -- either a PWC, which is personal watercraft, jet ski type of watercraft, or a flats boat on the other side. The dock extends into the water 48 and a half feet. We're approximately -- well, we are 58 feet, a little in excess of 58 feet from the thread of the channel.o Page 38 June 3, 2010 And this is a survey that was done by the water with depth readings all the way out. And they used the rangefinder that is accurate within a tenth of an inch to determine the actual thread of the channel. So the dock was again designed to give -- to not impede navigation from any of the neighbors. And it is set up for ease of access for Mr. Rotkvich for both of his watercraft. By the way, the -- both of the watercraft, if you add them up, do not exceed the 50 percent rule for the watercraft limit. Even after this older drawing. At this point I have another drawing. I don't think it's quite -- actually, that drawing that you had would be -- the color photograph, that would be great. We've already obtained DEP and Army Corps approval for this project. It has a 25-foot setback from the riparian lines to the -- to each side of the dock. That gives 25 feet from his dock to his riparian line. And then as you can see, his neighbor's docks on either side, there's no problem with their navigation. I was contacted by the neighbor to his right as you're facing the water, and he requested a copy of the plans, which I provided for him. I sent them to him by fax. So he -- that's all he requested. And he was happy with the result. So -- at this time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is that the way you oriented the lift, the -- it's going to actually cantilever out a little further than the dimension you requested. In other words, it's going to protrude past the -- you know, your dimension. And I think there might be concern, because we really have to measure to the -- MR. KELLY: To the vessel?e Page 39 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to the total vessel size. So in other words, all these dimensions here, there is one little small four-foot showing one of the beams of the thing, but are we asking for the right amount? Because for example, that 48-five, or 46-five, you're actually -- the motors and everything are going to stick out way past that. MR. KELLY: It's -- actually we're asking for 48-five. I'm sorry, did I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is that including -- okay. MR. KELL Y: Yes, sir, that includes the vessel. Ashley checked me on that. I had it to the edge of the outside lift piling. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. KELL Y: Yes, and the drawing should show that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it shows the 46. You can take it down and see the -- oh, I see it. Okay, never mind, it's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Kelly, I must admit, you've confused me a little bit. Why did you show a drawing that is old when we have drawings in the packet that -- which one are you trying to have us agree to? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. The one in the packet, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what was the relevance of the one that was old? MR. KELLY: What I did, sir, is I was -- this is my first Planning Commission, so I was unaware of what drawings I needed. So I reached into my pile of drawings and I happened to get one that was old. Weare actually drawing one very similar to this. Let me get -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have to pose this question while you're looking then. Because that drawing showed I thought a 30-foot boat and this drawing that I'm looking at shows what I think may be a 25 or 26-foot boat. Page 40 June 3, 2010 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So which is it that we're searching for? MR. KELLY: The 25-foot boat, yes, sir. And it's in your packet. I happened to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize that because I'm looking at it. MR. KELLY: And that's the one that I'm seeking approval on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we work with that one, please? MS. CASERTA: For the record, Ashley Caserta. Exhibit A, as attached to the CCPC resolution, is also the proposed drawing that was included with the packet. I believe Mr. Kelly used the exhibit that was approved by DEP. I believe it's the exact same dock with a different size boat shown. That DEP exhibit is also in your packet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. CASERTA: But the one that's attached to the resolution shows a 25-foot vessel, and that is the one we are looking at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if I heard you correctly then, what we're saying is that the DEP approved a vessel up to 30 feet. MS. CASERTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the dock that would be constructed based on the newer, even though it would accommodate potentially a 25 or 26-foot vessel, it could accommodate a 30-foot vessel; is that what we're saying? MS. CASERTA: As I understand it, it could accommodate a 30-foot vessel. The -- my criteria that I reviewed to doesn't have anything to do with the size of the vessel, but it does have something to do with, and I do look very closely at, where that vessel is going to be moored and how far into the water it's going to go as far as protrusion. Page 41 June 3, 20]0 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you understand my concerns, that the size of a vessel has something to do with the weight, which has to do with any kind of force on it against the dock and the structure of the dock. So you build it to the size of the vessel to hold it, that's where I'm coming from. MS. CASERTA: Understood. And the DEP and the exhibit that is shown attached to the resolution both show a 48.5-foot protrusion. Same protrusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. KELL Y: As a matter of clarification, we didn't need to put that 30- foot boat on there because Mr. Rotkvich indicated -- but even if we did put a 30-foot boat on there, the combined length of the vessels do not exceed the 50 percent rule, the Collier County rule for vessel length. But we just reduced it to what he actually had planned. And when I showed him the initial drawing and we signed off on it, I showed him what I could maximum the -- the size of boat I could maximum put on that particular lift. That's the reason for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in talking about the combination of length of these vessels, this dock is being constructed to handle two personal watercraft. I mean, that's what you've got space for. Otherwise this whole configuration could be different. So he may not own one right now, but you're building so he can have two. MR. KELL Y: He mentioned that he would potentially have a single water -- personal watercraft. I told him that DEP's regulations as well as Collier County requires that he have no more than two vessels. The design of this lift, they don't make a four-post lift for a Page 42 June 3, 2010 personal watercraft, for single personal watercraft. The reason I designed this like this, because that's the size of a lift that you can get. And he's also talking about the possibility of setting it up for a flats boat. Because it's very shallow in that area. And Mr. Rotkvich likes to fish, and to get into the more shallow areas to fish he wouldn't be able to do that with a 25- foot center console type boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, could you put the diagram on the projector that shows the water depth? We have one that shows how your water depth graduates the distance and feet you go out. Looks like it's attached to your DEP permit. MR. KELLY: Oh, okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that one there. You need to-- MR. KELL Y: Oh, he's already got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fit it all in for me. Okay, that's fine. So you're looking at -- you need three feet of water depth to get to your personal watercraft depth? MR. KELLY: Well, no, sir. But the requirement ofDEP is that you have at least three foot for a vessel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you need three feet of depth in order to dock the personal watercraft. MR. KELL Y: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to this diagram, the three feet is 20 feet out from the mean high water line, right? Is that correct? MR. KELL Y: Yes, sir. That's what it shows on the diagram, yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where is the boardwalk of that diagram? MR. KELLY: Well, the -- this particular diagram cannot show the complete boardwalk because it's -- it goes out appro -- well, let's see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm getting at is it looks like Page 43 June 3, 2010 you're 20 feet out from the mean high water and 30 feet out from something. On the bottom of the page your arrow says mean high water line/property line and it points to what I assume was the measurement line where you're taking all your measurements from. Is your mean high water and the property line the same thing? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. It's on the survey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then if your mean high water and property line is the same thing and you're 20 feet out from the mean high water property line, then how does that relate to the page that you attached to your permit from the county that you just had up there that shows you being actually 24 feet out to the launch for the -- or actually the boat dock for the personal motor craft, the one that you moved to the -- yeah, on that one. Now, back off of that one a bit. You got to back off of it a little bit. Okay, towards the bottom. Do you see where it says mean high water property line? It's the second line up from the bottom. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your measurement from that line is 25 plus four to the lift for the personal watercraft. So you're actually almost 30 feet. That seems to conflict with your depth find of 20 feet that you show on the document that we previously discussed. The documents don't seem to jive. And while we're on that subject, in the very first document you showed us from the DEP -- MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you showed a mangrove drip line that is completely different than the mangrove drip line on the application to the county. And I've seen no documents in your package that shows how your mangrove drip line overlays to the aerial, such as we saw in the first application. And the reason that's important is if that mangrove drip line Page 44 June 3, 2010 changes and you've got the depth, you can move these docks in further and it wouldn't need such an extension. MR. KELL Y: Well, I have to address this particular slide that we've got up here. The mangrove -- that does not conform to the mangrove drip line, where I've got labeled the mangroves. It's just to indicate that there are mangroves in there. I did not conform that to the mangrove drip line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KELLY: So that's just an indication. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's address the distance from the property line mean high water line. On this drawing it shows to the lift for the personal watercraft 29 feet. And the width of the piling might make it say close to 30. But on the DEP application that we pointed out earlier, you're showing 20 feet for that position from the same line. So that's a distance of 10 feet more. And I'm wondering how we got there. MR. KELLY: One moment while I look for this particular drawing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, we need to take a break for the court reporter. Why don't we do that, you can get your paperwork organized, you know what questions I'm going to have and then we can come back. So let's take a break until 10:00, we'll come back and 10:00 and resume. Thank you. (Recess. ) (At which time, Commissioner Murray is absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from break. We were fortunate to have a lot of reading handed out to us on break, so -- Melissa, this is your first meeting. And ever since Nick took over, we've had less to do. But then occasionally we have these big volumes of documents to read. So you will have a very good weekend reading all this, I'm sure. Page 45 June 3, 2010 So Mr. Kelly, let's go back to your issues. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been able to figure out these dimensions? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir, I have. The depth chart that you have which is the side view, those measurements into the water, the depths are -- were taken at the -- at those distances. Not these distances that are on the side view, but where the lift is going to go. We actually have on the aerial -- or on the overhead view we have the survey. And this is what was approved through DEP and what I actually submitted. And it is part of your package. It is going to be 30 feet out, and it is three foot at the point of the dock. I put this together. The drawing of the side view with the depths, I put it together later for DEP. And obviously they didn't catch this or question it. But it was incorrect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which was incorrect, the application of the DEP? MR. KELL Y: Yes, sir. The -- I had to provide them with depth readings and the side measurements or the side view. So that went with the DEP package. And I never changed it for Collier County when I put in the application. So this is incorrect, the side view distances out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then how do we know where the depths fall in relationship to the entire length of the dock, starting from the mean high water line? Because, I mean, that's a requirement. We need to understand where your depths go to understand why you're justifying a depth so you can meet the primary and secondary criteria. And this kind of puts the kibosh on that a little bit. MR. KELLY: Well, the surveyor provided me with depth readings all the way out. And I tried to superimpose those depth readings, and I obviously made an error in the distance on the side Page 46 June 3, 2010 VIew. It is three foot at the lift point on the survey, which is 30 feet out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- I don't think the mindset is to say you can't have a dock. MR. KELL Y: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally we try to get people to get their docks. If you own a piece of property in the water, you know, you should have a right to have a dock. But I think we have to have complete and accurate records every time we issue a permit or we could have problems like you saw with the neighbor in the prior hearing. Your documents I think could use a little touching up. I think if you gave us a depth chart with the dock overlaid on the depth chart and with the drip lines that matched the aerial so we see how the mangrove drip lines match with the docks and how the docks match with the depths and how the boat areas all line up. Because the way it appears now, you may not need as much of a protrusion based on depth as you're asking for, and that is one of the criteria that you have to meet. So you might be better off coming back to us with some more better laid out documents so we can finalize this. But that's just a suggestion. We'll wait and hear what Ashley has to say and then the rest of the questions from the Planning Commission. I just -- I think we should use a little more information to make sure that there's no mistake in the way you build a dock versus what you're permitted for. MR. KELLY: Well, sir, we have an aerial. And again, it's not-- and it shows the overlay. I can't make it out very well. It's a copy. The -- there is a dock drawn on an aerial view of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KELL Y: -- of this area that we want to propose this dock. And it shows all the mangroves there. So you have the mangrove drip, but -- the drip line. Page 47 June 3, 2010 But I'm trying to see if I have a good copy of that that would -- and I don't think that I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have the -- but you don't have an accurate drawing right now then of the depth going out as the dock goes out, one over-layed on the other; is that a fair statement? MR. KELLY: That's a fair statement, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And here's some of the criteria that you have to meet. And you probably are aware of this. Secondary criteria number one talks about the dimensions of the dock and it said, there must be at least one special condition related to the property. These may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth or sea grass beds. And if you don't have a mangrove reason to have the docks out that far and you don't have a depth reason to have the docks out that far, you don't meet all the criteria to be out that far. Now, you may have those reasons that may be legitimate, but I think you need to clearly show those based on the fact that the drawing that we were looking at is in error. I think a corrected drawing and I think a drawing showing the actual drip line of the mangroves instead of an erratic line would go a tremendous way to help you make your case that this is needed. At least that's my thought. You may hear more before the days over, but -- MR. KELLY: Well, I wanted to mention the fact that the -- that the secondary lift, the one for the flats boat, or the PWC, whichever they elect to put on there, will need approximately 18 to 24 inches of depth just for the lift. You've got a cradle system, you've got a bunk system that holds that vessel up. And that's I think part of the requirement from DEP, that you have at least three foot at the point of a lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I'm not disagreeing with you at all. No, you're not -- I'm not trying to disagree with you. I'm simply -- I don't have the documents in front of me telling me that that Page 48 June 3, 2010 distance that you have out is where you need to be to meet that depth. In fact, I have a document that says you don't need to be that far out to meet that depth. That's the conflict. MR. KELLY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we go to the staff report? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And back again on -- above the watercraft you have a 12- foot by 18- foot dock area you're building, right? MR. KELLY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Am I reading that right? Because you have -- well, why do you have a diagonal pattern, just to represent that that's part of the existing dock? MR. KELLY: The program that I used to draw these with is called Smart Draw, and they don't have the ability to -- or did not at the time I drew these over a year ago, have the ability to draw the dock pattern the other way. This is not the dock pattern. I've already made that aware to Mr. Rotkvich. So that's not the pattern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, what is that -- why do you have that large area there? You saw in the prior hearing that we were concerned about bringing too much dock out. What is going to happen out there? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. Two things: First off, it is difficult to load; and you really shouldn't load a boat, and it's difficult underneath a lift. So you need a docking area or a staging area where you can place a boat to off-load and on-load coolers or fishing gear, whatever you need. It is not recommended by any lift company that you ride a lift up and down or have -- you know, try and put that on underneath a lift. Page 49 June 3, 2010 So that's part of the reason. The other reason is Mr. Rotkvich has family that comes down and visits from time to time, and they would like a fishing area that they could go out there and enjoy the evening and fish or do whatever they want to out there. But the main reason is for the -- for the departure of the boat, loading and unloading the boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why isn't it then four feet, five feet? Why do you need essentially eight feet by 12? I mean -- MR. KELLY: Well, the maximum amount of terminal platform that is allowed pretty much is 160 square feet that DEP likes to abide by. And they do have the four-foot access walk. So we kind of stayed within those regulations. And of course the larger lift has to go out that far to accommodate a 25-foot boat. And therefore, we just -- that platform just fit within that -- in those criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, on this -- I believe it's the one you have up on the visualizer right now. That mangrove line there, that is a surveyed mangrove line; is that what you were telling us? MR. KELLY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and if that is a surveyed mangrove line, that means mangroves are not an issue in relationship to the placement of your dock. So now it becomes a depth issue, and that isn't going to be an important one. MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ashley? Page 50 June 3, 2010 MS. CASERTA: I just thought I would touch on that, as opposed to waiting until it was my turn to comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's your turn. I think we're done asking. MS. CASERTA: Okay, primary criteria number -- sorry, secondary criteria number one, whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the subject property which justify the proposed dimensions and location. The reason it is designed, as I understood it according to the application, the reason the proposed dock is designed at this location is because there's an existing dock that protrudes into the water through the mangroves at this same location. So that is what justifies the location and placement of the accessed walkway through the mangroves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more talking about if you look at the positioning of the boat against the location of those lines that were squiggly in regards to the drip line -- MS. CASERTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if the boat can go closer to the mangroves, it wouldn't need to be so far out. So that's how I was looking at it. I wasn't too concerned about where the walkway was coming through the mangroves. MS. CASERTA: I understood your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's all yours now. You want to make a regular presentation, or -- MS. CASERTA: The only thing I have to say is that I received one phone call from a neighboring property owner at 43 Southport Cove that stated they had no objection to the petition. And I'm available to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a question of Ashley? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Silence. Page 51 June 3, 2010 Thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: I have a speaker form, but it's filled out by Michelle (sic) Rotkvich, I guess. MR. ROTKVICH: It would be Michael. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, Michael, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want to come up and speak, or -- I mean, if your agent has spoken all you needed, that's fine. But it's up to you if you want to say something, you're more than welcome to. MR. ROTKVICH: I just had a couple of concerns about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to come up and use the microphone, and state your name. And if you could, spell the last spelling of it for the court reporter. MR. ROTKVICH: My name's Michael Rotkvich. Last name is R -0- T - K - V-I -C- H. I'm the owner of 54 Southport Cove. We received a restoration for the shoreline as far as adding vegetation. And within it we have all intentions on complying with the vegetation. But I would like some consideration on two issues. There's an existing tree, ficus trees that are planted in the backyard. They've been there for I believe forever. But I know at least 17 years, the previous owner planted it. And I have a four-inch flagpole that just encroaches into the easement by maybe a foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hate to tell you this, but this has been advertised only as a discussion on your boat dock extension. If there are other issues, they cannot be brought up for any kind of discussion or motion today. So -- and there are processes within the county to address all those that you have to go through first before you bring this issue up. MR. ROTKVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, is there anything different? MS. CASERTA: Attached to the resolution there is a planting plan. Page 52 June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CASERTA: And so that's what he's talking about. Because the environmental reviewer had requested that planting plan be in place as part of this boat dock extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we're not dealing with his removal of a ficus tree or of a variance on a flagpole, though, are we? MS. CASERTA: The planting plan as I understand it is requiring those to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I stand corrected. Sorry. If the -- but the planting plan -- Ashley, just come on back up. The planting plan doesn't allow for a variance, does it? I mean, if he's saying he has a flagpole encroaching -- and to be honest with you, I didn't pay much attention to the planting plan, so maybe we need staff to -- and I see Susan walking on up. Maybe she can enlighten us as to what this issue is about and how it relates to the boat dock extension. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stormwater? MS. MASON: That's our new section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They stuck you in Stormwater? MS. MASON: And Environmental Planning. And -- maybe I'll just say and Environmental Planning really loud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. Why don't you just take a big stick over at CDES and just stir it all up and see what comes out of it. MS. MASON: I had to say what section because I couldn't remember my department name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't blame you. MS. MASON: The reason that the planting plan -- the replanting plan is required for this part of Lely Barefoot Beach's PUD requirements, there's a 20-foot -- all these houses that are up in this area in Southport Cove have a 20- foot conservation easement at the Page 53 June 3, 2010 back of their property and it's required to be maintained and the -- largely mangroves but other native vegetation. There are some properties that don't comply with this. The previous boat dock extension that you just heard, you may have noticed in some of the photos, you can see on that vacant lot they had put up their silt fencing and all the protective signage so they don't encroach into their 20- foot required easement and don't damage it. There are some existing homes and some other properties that don't have the native vegetation. And when those come in for review, we do have them come into compliance with the conservation easement and make it either part of a boat dock -- if it didn't require an extension, it would be at the building permit review. This applicant was given the opportunity, when they came in, to either supply the restoration plan as part of this review or to -- that we could turn the case over to Code Enforcement. They elected to provide the restoration plan. And as part of that plan, on Page 1 under existing conditions section, the third paragraph, it does say that the sod, the flagpole and the non-native exotics will be removed. And that would be a requirement of maintaining it in its natural state. And to kind of further answer your question about whether or not a planting plan could approve a variance, no it could not, it would have to be in compliance with the existing platted conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I appreciate that background. And now, sir, let's get to your other questions. You had the ficus tree issue and a -- MR. ROTKVICH: The location -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue with your flagpole. What is it you wanted -- MR. ROTKVICH: The location of the flagpole. Page 54 June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to do with the --let's start with the ficus trees. What is it you were asking in relationship to this -- MR. ROTKVICH: Well, I'd like to -- if! could incorporate it into that layout for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Conservation plan? I can probably tell you no before she does. Ficuses are not much longer allowed as acceptable planting in Collier County. At least some of the species. And they're not something I think you would want to see in a conservation plan, because it's not native. So I would say no to that. I don't think you can go there. And is that -- Susan, please correct me if I'm wrong on those assumptions. MS. MASON: No, you're substantially correct. There was -- there's a couple of native ficus species. I don't know the species that this is referring to. However, since the professional who prepared this, who is a biologist, you can see on the last sheet of the planting plan, the credentials for the person who prepared it, he is qualified. Since he had stated that they were to be removed, it would be a non-native ficus. And the same with the structures. Like a flagpole could not be permitted. The easement does allow -- really the only structure is the dock to pass through the mangrove area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the flagpole. So what that means is if you want the flagpole to stay there, you have to go through a variance process. And it would probably mean amending your conservation easement. I don't even know if, to be honest with you, that would even be worth it. Are there any other questions you had, sir? MR. ROTKVICH: Well, no. I just wanted to make that statement. When I bought the property a year ago, there was nothing Page 55 June 3, 2010 stipulating that I had to -- I didn't even -- I didn't know that the easement had to be landscaped. I figured it was a developer that cleared the lot and was permitted to do so. And I have to re-landscape the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we found this is happening quite a bit in the county. So you're not alone, if that helps you any. MR. ROTKVICH: Well, I'm alone today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ROTKVICH: You're welcome. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're back at -- I think we've heard all the public speakers, we've had the comments. Mr. Kelly. And I'll turn to the rest of the board for an opinion too. I don't know how to get through to the end point today with approval with the documents that aren't as complete as they need to be. I don't think you've got a problem if you get the rest of -- if you bring the documents, fine tune them. Bring us an accurate depth document showing where the dock is located in relationship to the depth and all that, and to come back and request right now a continuance to come back at another time. Now, you don't have to do that, we can vote on it the way it is, but it may not be a favorable vote if you don't come back with better paperwork. It's up to you. MR. KELLY: I'll request a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the rest of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's the right thing to do. MR. KELLY: So what you would like to see is the depth readings going out, accurate depth readings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need the depth readings showing where the dock is located in relationship to the depth, since you've told us now that the other document we have is not accurate. Page 56 June 3, 2010 And we also -- I think it would be helpful to know where that drip line is of the mangroves, to show that you're not intruding in the mangroves and whether or not they impact the docks. In case the depths show you could be moved in, the mangroves may be the prohibiting factor. So I think those two things would be important for you to bring back to us. Okay? Does that work for everybody? Okay, so the motion's been for -- the applicant's asked for a continuance. Is there a motion to accept that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much, sir, we appreciate it. Item #9C PETITION: V A-PL2009-045, SARA BARRERA Next item up is a variance petition, V A-PL2009-045, Sara Barrera at 202 W ashington Avenue. Page 57 June 3, 2010 All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments from-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a disclosure. I asked for and received the copy of the plans that I believe were submitted for permit in 2008 -- or, I'm sorry, a year ago, 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other disclosures? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I had a conversation with the applicant during the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it, great. Thank you. I guess the presentation is being made by the applicant. Mr. or Mrs. Barrera? MR. BARRERA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You can make it as short as you want. And we can just ask you questions, however you'd like to proceed. MR. BARRERA: Good morning, everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself first for the court reporter. MR. BARRERA: My name is Jose Barrera. B-A-R-R-E-R-A. MRS. BARRERA: My name is Sara Barrera. S-A-R-A. B-A-R-R-E-R-A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BARRERA: We're just here with this petition for that we can keep our very much needed space. We're kind of nervous, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite all right. I notice all your neighbors are in support of what you're trying to do. MR. BARRERA: Yes, sir. We spoke with everybody, and nobody is opposed to it. Everybody is -- it's okay with. We even spoke with the -- it was a high school and they weren't Page 58 June 3, 2010 against it either. So we're just here and hoping we can, you know, approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll make this as painless as possible. MR. BARRERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll ask -- we'll see if there's any questions. Any questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the staff have a report? You may break a record today in being the fastest processed application. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning Services. And we are recommending approval of this variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. I'm wondering if the county discovering this eight-foot encroachment and bringing it before this board is a really good use of staff time and expense for the homeowner, the $5,000 that he had to pay. Considering how many similar violations you could potentially find in Immokalee if you really started looking. Do we really want staff to be, you know, looking for that kind of thing? Especially since it's not really a negative effect on anybody's health or welfare of the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Paul, I certainly do agree with you. I think the only way this should have come up is if there was a complaint filed. And ifthere wasn't a complaint filed, it shouldn't be in front of us today and these people shouldn't have had to waste the money to be here. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I can respond to that. There is a copy of the code enforcement case in the backup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there a complaint? Page 59 June 3, 2010 MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there was. They responded to a complaint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're kind of stuck with it, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question of Nancy. Nancy, did they obtain a permit or they're in the process of? MS. GUNDLACH: We can ask them. Have you applied for a building permit? MR. BARRERA: No, ma'am. They say we just need like an after -the- fact permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BARRERA: I think so, yes. Yes, because we submitted everything there. So that's what it is, after-the-fact permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So these are being processed as we speak? I mean, they were drawn up in 2008, October. The date of this, Nancy, I guess -- where did you get it from? MS. GUNDLACH: From our applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is five, 2009. I mean, you're going to have to -- this still means you have to get a building permit. MR. BARRERA: Yes, sir. I think that's what was said with Maria Rodriguez, I think, we have to get an after-the-fact permit. And I don't know; something that we have to pay some twice the amount of the fines or something like that. That's all I really know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. BARRERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's odd that there was a complaint filed but there's no objection to this. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, I noted that in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know who filed a complaint? Was it an individual or was it -- MS. GUNDLACH: Well, complaints filed with code Page 60 June 3, 2010 enforcement are anonymous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another problem with this County. So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, that being said, Mark, I don't think it's a good idea for people to go ahead and enclose carports without obtaining building permits because of things like this. A carport is not the same as an enclosed building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but when the process costs more to fix the problem than the problem costs to do, I mean, this is a lot of money. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then the money versus penalty we could look at. And I think Nick is looking at that stuff. But the concern is there's no way we should give anybody the impression we encourage you to do your carport enclosure without a building permit first. Because I think you may have difficulty getting a permit, because it's difficult to get a permit, even if you do it brand new. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I mean, this one involves a bathroom, and it involves plumbing, not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- just the structure alone. I think there are a lot of potential pitfalls here that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what happens is the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Hopefully they've done it right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- they'll look for a statement from a design professional who will endorse that everything was done properly. Which; the only guy I think can do that is Superman, who can look into things. So it is a -- it's a mess if you build it ahead of time. And you know that better than anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless, they're in the process to get it fixed and I think that's where we're at today. Does this board have any questions or concerns they want to ask Page 61 June 3, 2010 of anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Paul-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go ahead, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's his turf. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we recommend approval of this variance. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Midney. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And by the way, let the record show Mr. Murray had to leave earlier for a prior engagement. And thank you very much. And again, sorry you had the expense to get here today, but -- MR. BARRERA: I appreciate it. Page 62 June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, old business. We don't have any. Anybody? (No response.) Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for discussion purposes, as you hear these variance processes, we're looking -- working with the County Attorney's Office to come up with an administrative variance process that would be a little different. This building is what, 10, 12, 13, 15 years old? Things like this where you talked about the expense in coming in front of the Planning Commission, criteria, time, if an application was filed. These are the kind of things you'd want to see handled more administratively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, to be honest with you, the issue that I'm having with it is not the fact they're coming -- have to come through the process. That's fine, it's safe, it makes it work. But the cost. Someone said it was $5,000. That's huge. To get to a -- just to come in and ask for permission, just because somebody made a mistake. I don't know if they intentionally made one or not, but they didn't -- you know, I don't know why we'd want to charge someone that kind of money. That's a lot of money. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's based on advertising, staff time, preparing the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- packages. If you want to do an abbreviated process for something like this, I'm sure we could come up with an abbreviated -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you're coming in with a Page 63 June 3, 2010 suggestion that there's a better way to do it that would save the public money, I'm all for that. So -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the thing we've got to be careful. We do not want to endorse what this guy did. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And he's showing drawings with assumptions of footings that I know are not there for a carport. And you don't want to make it where it's easy for somebody to take a carport like he did and just enclose it. There's life safety issues on the inside of the house, there's issues on ventilation of the windows that Donna brought out, that there's plumbing in this case. God only knows what's happening. And we -- you know, we have a building process. We can never encourage anybody to do it. His only reason he's before us is he made the mistake of violating the setback because the original carport did. But in the design of that neighborhood, you know, maybe the main building had a setback and carports had a different setback, and that makes sense, because a carport's an open structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we're discussing criteria, time, if it was the original owner. I mean, ifthere's things that we could look at that would, you know, qualify for an abbreviated process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And I think that's the key. And I don't disagree with Brad's position; I just disagree with the costs for the public to do anything here. And we're just -- we've got excessive costs. It would be nice if we could be user-friendly, financially. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I want to say that I totally agree with Brad. I really think we have to be very careful on these types of variances. We should be supporting the people who follow Page 64 June 3, 2010 the rules as opposed to making exceptions for those who don't follow the rules in the beginning. And as I did say, this one has plumbing issues and other things. So it could be -- as well as electrical and potentially structural, as Mr. Schiffer pointed out. So I really think we have to be very cautious. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And whatever we do obviously will be vet in front of this Commission. But the idea is to come up with criteria. Maybe there are no building issues, you know, building permits were secured. It's not the original owner, time. I mean, different criteria that we can work with the County Attorney's Office to bring back with discussion in front of this Commission to say what makes sense for an abbreviated process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let's look at it this way: I mean, you have a lot of projects where people enclose a carport that's within the setbacks that are silent, we never hear about that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in that process you double the permit fee. That's your only thing. Now, if the mistake is that they cause a very -- you know, a setback issue or something that would come before us, that should be the additional cost that we look at. You've studied all your costs, do you think the $5,000 is a fair number? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, it's representative of staff time going into the project to review it, meeting with the neighbors. If it's something that's contentious where people come in and ask for a lot of information. So, you know, it's never the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought to be looking at the cost on a case-by-case basis and not penalizing the smaller innocuous applications like this for the averaging out of the more contentious ones.I Page 65 June 3, 2010 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe the cost should be a not to exceed, and you bill it in-house. MR. CASALANGUIDA: A base cost or, you know, cost plus. This is the base cost and if it becomes contentious, requires more time, it's added on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And have a cap so that if it's an easy one, it's easy. And then do they to come before a board like this is the question. What do you think? I mean, who should argue whether that setback -- I mean, obviously if there's no neighbors complaining, that's a situation different than if a neighbor's complaining. So what if you had it where in-house there's -- you've got really good letters, somehow certify the letters of the neighbors and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, we're going to be bringing some documents forward for your review with some criteria, and we can talk about it some more at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we give it some time for you to suggest something and we'll go from there. That way the County Attorney can review it to make sure it's sufficient. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Code Enforcement follows this until they get their permit, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay, anybody else have any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think we are done. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Second-- Page 66 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Ms. Caron. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're out of here. Thank you all. See you on the 15th. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:32 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 67